rihad wrote:
Trying for the third time:
Do you have any intention of reading the messages here?
there are many, many requests of the "Discarding conflicting packet" kind, which for one reason or another are dupped by our Cisco NASes in under one second (see the code). And there are many, many lines of the "Received conflicting packet" fame (see the code).
If (as you say) the NAS is sending a conflicting packet within 1 second of the first one, then the NAS is broken. It SHOULD wait 5 seconds for the old request to time out, before sending a new one that re-uses the same IP/port/Id. Take your NAS, and throw it in the garbage. Buy a real NAS that implements RADIUS.
Now, it can be logically deduced that a big part of the latter are indeed of the former type (because none of the NASes have timeouts as low as 2-5 seconds). What I'd really love is for freeradius to stop killing the current request after receiving a dup 2-5 seconds apart.
That won't solve anything. This has been explained to you. Did you understand the explanation, or are you simply ignoring it?
It's no problem for me to patch and rebuild freeradius myself, I just thought it wouldn't be fair not to share that idea with others.
Thanks. And we shared our opinions... and you told us we were wrong.
Stop hacking the server and start looking at your perl code. Do you really need to use it for authentication? Can you get all the data in authorize script and let freeradius default modules do the authentication (that can speed things up quite a bit)? Can you get (some of) the data using freeradius sql/ldap/whatever modules instead?
The rlm_perl authorization/accounting is dealing with traffic shaping, so I'd rather fix this freeradius' shortcoming.
That response completely ignores the question. Did you understand it? Alan DeKok.